Posted on 04/14/2015 6:57:32 AM PDT by Paisan
Reminds me of Bill Clinton and "don't ask, don't tell."
Anyone with a lick of sense knew he was lying about his intentions from the get-go.
*sigh*
No, not the 3rd grade level parallels. I’m talking about the rationale for both that were put forward.
The Founding Fathers went through a completely different process, with actual rational reasons brought about by real overreach from a London government that they had no representation in. While the confederates didn’t even bother to offer rational reasons, and were BY NO DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE being oppressed by a far off government that they had no representation in. In fact they had exercised far greater influence to get what they wanted than anyone in 1776 could have ever dreamed of.
So...Roosevelt was a mass murderer for slaughtering Germans and Japanese?
That’s true, but the basic fact is that people were next to powerless in stopping the capture of these people and their extradition.
I see it as ultimately about the control and future of the country, as it expanded West.
Lincoln did not abolish secession de jure, but Lincoln and the civil war did it de facto.
Whether secession from this government can be accomplished legally and without violence is highly unlikely.
As you said earlier.
And yet discussions of the civil war always end up with justifying it because of the abolition of slavery, when even you admit that this was not the aim of the war.
Most people who have spent any time reading up on the Civil War will say without hesitation that from the Union standpoint the ending of slavery was not a goal of the war. A happy outcome, but not the goal. Most Southern supporters who have spent little or no time reading up on the Civil War will deny that slavery played any part in the Southern decision to secede and start the war. They, of course, are wrong.
Suppressing Southern Independence rebellion was the aim of the war, and Abolishing slavery was an ex post fact addendum.
There, I fixed it for you.
As another poster mentioned, the South since the days of Calhoun also resented protective tariffs on northern manufactured goods, because little of that revenue went to the South, while they had to bear the brunt of it due to a lack of local manufacturing.
While Lincoln was guilty of a bait and switch in many ways on the slavery issue (and the Emancipation Proclamation a stupid move that changed the public perception of the war from a patriotic war to preserve the Union to a massive loss of life for the Abolitionist's pet moral cause), there's also the fact that the South's action of firing on Ft. Sumter rather than attempting to peacefully petition for secession was an incredibly stupid move. After Sumter, the Union could claim the moral high ground of fighting a defensive war.
Lincoln slaughtered HIS OWN fellow Americans..and he was a RACIST..I hope hes burning in hell- along with his fellow henchman Sherman.
As the Supreme Court ruled in 1869 secession is possible through two means; rebellion or the consent of the other states. The South tried the first path and look where that got them. Maybe next time they'll try the second one.
Robert Lee slaughtered HIS OWN fellow Americans..and he was a RACIST too. You suppose he and Lincoln are sitting around wondering if it's the heat or the humidity?
This view is incompatible with the facts. Jefferson and Washington both owned slaves. If they intended for the words in the Declaration to apply to slaves, they would have freed their own before or quickly after the creation of the document.
I think Jefferson *wanted* it to be inspirational and apply to all men, but his flowery language does not trump the will and reality of the actual understood meaning.
Ping
Yes, they definitely made a muck of it. I do not see this as obviating their rights though.
The secessionists wanted to “institute new Government” without actually stipulating what was wrong with the existing, and didnt even care to try to iron out misunderstandings.
I think the Southern states had witnessed a constant and ever expanding advancement of the cause of abolition threatening their interests since the 1790s. I think throughout the entire period of History after 1787 there were efforts to reconcile the existing circumstances of an economy heavily dependent upon slavery with a conflicting but growing political opposition to it.
The movement was growing and it became impossible to believe it would not eventually destroy much of the South's financial underpinnings if it could not be stopped through separation. I think they saw Lincoln as the writing on the wall, and he was. And it turned out to be much sooner than they thought.
Ooooh, you said “colored” - rasis!
I do not believe any written word is proof against a sufficiently powerful meme. If you know your history, you can see how abolition continuously spread with one state after another slowly passing laws for the gradual abolition of slavery.
Abolition wasn't going to be stopped. It would have eventually become socially unacceptable to maintain people in bondage even in the South.
If you've read George Washington's writings on slavery and his change of opinion regarding it, you quickly realize that it was only a matter of time before these ideas became apparent to everyone, even those who had a vested financial interest in the peculiar institution.
Not true. Peaceful secession has yet to be tried so we do not know how successful it can be.
As a consequence of Lincoln and the Civil war, the vast majority of Americans believe secession is completely illegal, and that any attempt to secede should be stopped by force if necessary.
The Public relations damage to the idea of independence is some of the worst damage caused by the civil war.
Actually it is only chicken little’s like you going around hyperventilating about and lying about history that cause people to believe that.
LINCOLN killed states rights....
and now we are paying the price...
tyranical federal government
violating the Constitution at every chance..
We would have been broken, divided into two separate countries, easy prey for other nations. The south didn’t want states rights, they wanted a separate nation( which by the way, violated the rights of its states, nationalized whole industries, and ran a society under Marshall law.)
Lee was trying to defend himself and his fellow southerners against the slaughter started by Lincoln.
Boothe should have been given a metal for what he did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.